betsydoglover wrote:Any thoughts would be appreciated. My oncologist will never use the "cured" word - neither will I - just how we are, but at the same time I'm not sure I should keep on scanning for the rest of my life,
Betsy, my oncologist basically said "we are in new territory here." There just isn't an official protocol on how to monitor Stage 4 survivors.
WORD ... DOUBLE WORD and ...
I just "graduated" to 6 month scans on my last visit. BUT she wants to keep all the labs (CEA, LDH, CMP, CBC) every 2 months for now. However, I was a pretty "hard-core" Stage 4. At diagnosis, I had several mets to my liver and one in each lung. I've had clear scans for quite awhile now so things are looking good.
I suspect she'll go to yearly scans at some point, but for sure not until my HAI pump has been removed.
Wanna see how it's done = read juliej
TRIPLE WORD !!!!!!
CRguy, how were your ultrasound and xrays? Everything still good? I'm due for my 3 year colonoscopy next month. Oh joy.
Have not booked the follow up consult yet … you KNOW ME … have a couple of other tests to run and just want to get ALL the info for the visit so we have everything
nothing major … I do occasional 24 hour urine collections and a few other regular bloods ( from another Doc ) so ONE appt time is good for me now with ALL the info at once = just ME
I know I know......
Thanks, CRguy! Great info on using alternative diagnostic imaging! I will talk to my docs about this in the future (assuming everything keeps going well for me!).
Question: what are the limits of xrays? Do they show the difference between scarring and something else? Would they show something more complex, like for example, interstitial lung disease? Since xrays show radiodense tissues, I thought they showed mostly bone and some minor lung detail??? Gland and scar tissue show up but tend to get lost in the clutter, I thought. Just curious... and I know you know a lot more than me (and most folks)!
basic “rule” = xrays “like” density gradients = metals, contrasts, bone, dense tissue, less dense tissues, air.
ultrasounds like density “interfaces”, liquid on solid, liquid on less liquid, = hate air on air, which is = lung tissues for the most part.
CTs are just enhanced computer generated 3D multiple xrays all added up to give a “virtual” picture
MRI = totally different technology of a computer enhanced image constructed from the “resonance” of tissues and contrasts based essentially on water molecules
we ARE after all 98% water
PET scans = metabolic activity measured and reconstructed into a virtual image based upon “ radioactive labelled” glucose uptake of the tissues
SO in a nutshell : depends upon what you wanna see … which modality you would use
AND … which resolution you need
A low res CT would be worse than a GREAT Xray … IMO.
A high res CT with contrast would probably be better than the Xray … IMO
AND ALL radiologists love to see their contrast CTs = what their comfort zone is.
MRI = very good resolutions and no “radiation” exposures, SO if I had to choose just ONE imaging modality I would probably opt for MRI
in many … BUTT NOT ALL situations.
Hopefully none of us have to choose just one, so that is why I constructed my follow up plan in the world of “ No Official Protocol ” the way I did.
I know I have told y’all I have A GREAT GP and if and when I need something not in the playbook I will get it privately.
As to interstitial thoracic disease per se
a high quality xray is a great choice, possibly guided by exact signalment, to a follow up imaging protocol for more specifics
as always homies ... = JMO
Great chattin' with you again JJ
YOU don't be no stranger 'round HERE
YOU HEAR !!!!